The never-ending League Restructure debate (Many merged threads)

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

We know which clubs are well financed, successful and turning over up to £6,000,000 and more.

Leeds, Wigan, Hull, Saints, Wires, Fartown, Catalans with Salford to add to that list, Featherstone with a promise of annual riches and full cap, maybe even Toulouse with local mega-riches promised..........

We know the clubs that just can't keep up. Bradford were in administration, Wakefield were in Adminsitration, London collapsed almost completely, Chairmen pulling out their continuing private funding at HKR, Widnes, and Castleford. These are not well off clubs, nor are Sheffield, Halifax and Leigh well off.

The unmanageable debt of superleague is mainly with the bottom clubs. these are the clubs who need to sell any players the top clubs will deign to buy, clubs who have to make heavy cost cutting measures, clubs who have talked about the glass ceiling in Superleague that they cannot afford to get above.

IMVHO The glass ceiling isn't between SL and CC anymore it's in Superleague. The have's and the have not's aren't SL clubs and CC clubs anymore. Featherstone who have neven been in SL have far more than Bradford who couldn't stop winning it.

We can't find 14 teams to compete evenly in SL, there isn't the resources. just because they are cutting two doesn't mean two more won't be struggling badly next year.

And so by looking at events and realities and who has what, said what, and who is doing what, then all I observe is a huge gap appearing between the top ten clubs and the rest.

Similarly if you want an immense gap make SL 16 clubs.

I'm sorry for being dim, but I still don't understand from what you've written why there would be a bigger gap between 1st and 2nd tier with 2x10 as opposed to 2x12. From your argument above, surely 2x10 would be better as there would be 4 fewer struggling clubs?

[THE RED ROOSTER]

The Fundamental problem in the game lies in the lack of expansion of the sport because being stuck in a geographically restricted area restricts

• Your playing base
• Your funding commerically and TV revenue
• Your benefactors as if you are a local delicacy so to speak there is only a limited pool of investors who are willing to put money into the sport 

Nane any successful business that succeeded by contracting. You have to expand your business and to do that you have to have a business plan is there any plan to this restructuring apart from trying to be all things to all men.

 

If the game is serious about becoming a major sport then it needs to have a plan to expoand and acknowledge there will be casualties any commissioner RFL or Super League becoming the most hated man / woman in the M62 region.

 

Lets just take The French Question who seriously on this board thinks that a round robin in the 8/8/8 against Featherstone Rovers, Halifax, Leigh and Batley along with Wakefield, Castleford and Hul KR would do anything other than lead to the swift demise of the French outpost.

 

So the French Question is a simple one - Do you want the development of French Rugby League in which case relegation into the second 8 is not an option or do you really want a "traditional" club who has "earned" its place in Rugby Leaguie over the last 100 years and has "so much to offer" including the 100 travelling fans on your gate. A legitimate position to take I will say but not one that offers the game a long term future.

 

Still there is opposition to expansion in the game and plenty who pay lip service to the ideal expounding the view that a couple of recreational amateur teams = expansion. Looking forward to the day when LPL publishes The Reluctant Expansionist about the attempts to spread the game and one Garry Schofield might not be autographing...

Edited December 24, 2013 by THE RED ROOSTER

[GIANTSTRIDES]

But those clubs aren't fixed though. That's the thing. People keep making out that these power clubs are in a closed shop, when in reality clubs are joining them and clubs are leaving.

The financially struggling clubs aren't always the same.

Were Hull, Warrington, Catalans and Huddersfield a part of this "power club" closed shop 10 years ago?

Were Bradford in the doldrums?

London have been up and down faster than a fiddler's elbow.

Salford have gone from the very bottom of financial crisis to the very top with the power makers in the space of less than a season.

Is it Super League that is causing this? Or is it just sport at this level? Some clubs have it, some don't. Isn't that part of sport anyway? Why can't we let clubs find their own level rather than artificially placing them and protecting them? How do we know if we're protecting the right clubs and not just propping up failure?

If you make the league smaller, there will always be someone struggling. That's sport! Why we feel the need to take this competitive part of sport away I don't know. There are winners and losers. Get on with it!

 

 

There is a lot to agree with here, my main problem with it is that, getting on with it has usually meant the failures of SL are so badly mauled by their own efforts that Like Fax for example, they take a decade to get back to something like, If they are lucky enough ( as Huddersfield were ) they are strong enough to get straight back.

 

I don't know the answers anymore than anyone else, For what it's worth my opinion is that ( Pretty much as you have said ) you can jiggle about with formats, change the game round and turn it upside down whatever, The well run clubs and especially the one's with rich men behind them, will always be the Elite, The reason they are up there is precicely because they are well run, I don't find that a reason to start bleating about unfair advantages and fair play,

Leeds and Wigan are the benchmark for me and there are others who are getting there, Whatever happens or whoever plays in SL the aim must always be about the quality of the product that goes on TV, without that Sky money, the game in todays compeitive market is worth diddly, There would be Maybe 4/5 clubs with nobody else to play and below that  ?

 

Some may well prefer that, putting the clock back ( so to speak ) Not me, i want to see the best there is, whatever shirt they wear. But what i don't want to see is the same thing happening to Fev as what has with some others, But i do take the point ( made many times ) that teams deserve their chance, And to be honest i don't really care who the SL clubs are as long as they can compete.

[jpmc]

If the game is serious about becoming a major sport then it needs to have a plan to expoand and acknowledge there will be casualties any commissioner RFL or Super League becoming the most hated man / woman in the M62 region.

Start with Bradford

[The Parksider]

I'm sorry for being dim, but I still don't understand from what you've written why there would be a bigger gap between 1st and 2nd tier with 2x10 as opposed to 2x12. From your argument above, surely 2x10 would be better as there would be 4 fewer struggling clubs?

 

The problem is the financial gap between the divisions.

 

Take four struggling clubs out of Superleague and the finances are stronger and bigger per club for the remaining 10, So the remaining 10 end up further in front of championship clubs and the 4 dumped struggling SL clubs who will struggle even more without getting top tier money.

 

Giving the top tier £1.2M a club and the second tier nothing creates a massive gap, clubs with rich owners against clubs without also creates a massive gap.

 

It's a fluid situation but potentially in a year or so there will be around 10 clubs with rich owners, if they ALSO get top money from SKY the gap may well be at it's widest ever.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

The problem is the financial gap between the divisions.

 

Take four struggling clubs out of Superleague and the finances are stronger and bigger per club for the remaining 10, So the remaining 10 end up further in front of championship clubs and the 4 dumped struggling SL clubs who will struggle even more without getting top tier money.

 

Giving the top tier £1.2M a club and the second tier nothing creates a massive gap, clubs with rich owners against clubs without also creates a massive gap.

 

It's a fluid situation but potentially in a year or so there will be around 10 clubs with rich owners, if they ALSO get top money from SKY the gap may well be at it's widest ever.

Ah I understand now. I was operating on the principle that the money saved by chopping a further 2 clubs would be redistributed to the 2nd tier thus closing the gap rather than widening it. IMO this is the only way that P&R can ever work, as relegation into a league with such a huge drop in funding forces clubs to completely alter their business model.

[yipyee]

We know which clubs are well financed, successful and turning over up to £6,000,000 and more.

Leeds, Wigan, Hull, Saints, Wires, Fartown, Catalans with Salford to add to that list, Featherstone with a promise of annual riches and full cap, maybe even Toulouse with local mega-riches promised..........

We know the clubs that just can't keep up. Bradford were in administration, Wakefield were in Adminsitration, London collapsed almost completely, Chairmen pulling out their continuing private funding at HKR, Widnes, and Castleford. These are not well off clubs, nor are Sheffield, Halifax and Leigh well off.

The unmanageable debt of superleague is mainly with the bottom clubs. these are the clubs who need to sell any players the top clubs will deign to buy, clubs who have to make heavy cost cutting measures, clubs who have talked about the glass ceiling in Superleague that they cannot afford to get above.

IMVHO The glass ceiling isn't between SL and CC anymore it's in Superleague. The have's and the have not's aren't SL clubs and CC clubs anymore. Featherstone who have neven been in SL have far more than Bradford who couldn't stop winning it.

We can't find 14 teams to compete evenly in SL, there isn't the resources. just because they are cutting two doesn't mean two more won't be struggling badly next year.

And so by looking at events and realities and who has what, said what, and who is doing what, then all I observe is a huge gap appearing between the top ten clubs and the rest.

Similarly if you want an immense gap make SL 16 clubs.

I ma be rremembering wrongly but wasn't the league competitive with 12 teams (11english)?

[yipyee]

Ah I understand now. I was operating on the principle that the money saved by chopping a further 2 clubs would be redistributed to the 2nd tier thus closing the gap rather than widening it. IMO this is the only way that P&R can ever work, as relegation into a league with such a huge drop in funding forces clubs to completely alter their business model.

Or team's could get parachute payments for 3 years tailing off each year.....This way clubs could keep most the squad together and adjust as needed year to yea!

[GIANTSTRIDES]

Ah I understand now. I was operating on the principle that the money saved by chopping a further 2 clubs would be redistributed to the 2nd tier thus closing the gap rather than widening it. IMO this is the only way that P&R can ever work, as relegation into a league with such a huge drop in funding forces clubs to completely alter their business model.

 

And thereby lies the real crux of the situation, There is not enough money coming in to make  a big enough or meaningful difference to the lower league's, not without reducing the quality of the present SL, and that is the worst thing that could happen.

 

Judging by people's reactions to Bradfords misfortune's We may well (as someone suggested ) be better to let all clubs just sink or swim, At least we would find out who is really SL standard, The one's with either money or very big crowds and sponsership could well amount to around 10 clubs, I'm sure Sky would be happy with that.

[The Parksider]

I may be remembering wrongly but wasn't the league competitive with 12 teams (11english)?

 

Once SL settled down we had various combinations of Bradford, Wigan, Saints and Leeds at the top year after year. Hull poked their nose in a time or two then Wire started to rise. Very roughly top six attendances were double bottom six and the richest owners usually had places 1-6.

 

So the league did not attain the competitiveness the RFL were looking for which was often stated as a desire by both the RFL and SLE clubs, to emulate the NRL.

 

Licensing was introduced to try to give the bottom clubs time to catch up, but IMVHO it didn't work because the bottom clubs didn't have the money to invest in improving their clubs, the top clubs would sign the lower clubs best players keeping them down and the best juniors wanted to sign for the top six who also attracted more local kids of their own to play the game.

 

So neither P & R OR licensing has allowed the professional game to grow itself to a situation where there's a competitive league. The alternative IMVHO is the "third way" of centrally planning a made for TV league, but tradition will ensure that's a non-starter.

Edited December 24, 2013 by The Parksider

[Padge]

The stability of SL over the last few years has allowed the cream to rise.

 

People now want to take the top off and let the cream sour, that will only make what is underneath worse.

[yipyee]

Once SL settled down we had various combinations of Bradford, Wigan, Saints and Leeds at the top year after year. Hull poked their nose in a time or two then Wire started to rise.

very roughly top six attendances were double bottom six and the richest owners usually had places 1-6.

So the league did not attain the competitiveness the RFL were looking for which was often stated as a desire by both the RFL and SLE clubs, to emulate the NRL.

Licensing was introduced to try to give the bottom clubs time to catch up, but IMVHO it didn't work because the bottom clubs didn't have the money to invest in improving their clubs, the top clubs would sign the lower clubs best players keeping them down and the best juniors wanted to sign for the top six who attracted local kids to play the game.

So neither P & R OR licensing has allowed the professional game to grow itself to a situation where there's a competitive league.

If thatis the case and the bbottom wasn't competitive (which i was) why did tthey add2 teams?

The situation was it was competitive with 10 heartland clubs (plus London and catalan) London was going well with mac in charge and youth making the england squad, so they tried adding two clubs, a heartland club and an expansion club the two added clubs both failed, one was rescued and one was replaced with a feeder club, at this point the league should have reverted back.....instead they carried on, unfortunately hitting a recession, operating at 14 clubs when the optimum is 12,

If the SL reverted back to 12 with only 10 heartland clubs it will once again be competitive , (presuming London wil be ok).

OOncee the country has recovered it may in time be ok to expand once again....

[The Parksider]

If thatis the case and the bbottom wasn't competitive (which i was) why did tthey add2 teams?

The situation was it was competitive with 10 heartland clubs (plus London and catalan) London was going well with mac in charge and youth making the england squad, so they tried adding two clubs, a heartland club and an expansion club the two added clubs both failed, one was rescued and one was replaced with a feeder club, at this point the league should have reverted back.....instead they carried on, unfortunately hitting a recession, operating at 14 clubs when the optimum is 12,

If the SL reverted back to 12 with only 10 heartland clubs it will once again be competitive , (presuming London wil be ok).

OOncee the country has recovered it may in time be ok to expand once again....

 

They added two clubs which helped facilitate Crusaders entry to Superleague. Cru lost the play off Final in extra time so Lewis and the RFL ended up with the wrong script. They also decided that they would give all SL clubs a chance to grow under licensing (giving Cas a second chance) which started at the same time.

 

The "hope" (this is a good word IMVHO, after failing to really develop Superleague into it's originally intended model all they could do was hope any changes would work. No doubt hope has turned to "pray" when it comes to 2x12=3x8) was licensing and minimum standards would work. It didn't.

 

By 2012 Widnes had a rich owner and were good material for SL. The warning signs were there as Wakefield and Crusaders collapsed, but after Plan "A"  did not get off the ground (mergers) and Plan "B" failed (P & R) the RFL had no alternative to plan "C" (licensing) so just did what you do in a crisis.

 

Carry on and hope something turns up.

 

And so it came to pass that the RFL called in KPMG to provide Plan "D" which is a P & R marathon of seven whole rounds. When that collapses at least the RFL can blame KPMG who erm.....won't care.

 

If you want competitiveness IMVHO you have to plan it and not leave it to chance. That the Superleague clubs can't even plan to meet each other under an agreed agenda, without flouncing about and bitching at each other means IMVHO any solution along the lines of how other sports successfully adapt to TV paymasters and provide credible competitiveness is nigh on impossible.

Edited December 24, 2013 by The Parksider

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Did P&R fail though?

[keighley]

Once SL settled down we had various combinations of Bradford, Wigan, Saints and Leeds at the top year after year. Hull poked their nose in a time or two then Wire started to rise. Very roughly top six attendances were double bottom six and the richest owners usually had places 1-6.

 

So the league did not attain the competitiveness the RFL were looking for which was often stated as a desire by both the RFL and SLE clubs, to emulate the NRL.

 

Licensing was introduced to try to give the bottom clubs time to catch up, but IMVHO it didn't work because the bottom clubs didn't have the money to invest in improving their clubs, the top clubs would sign the lower clubs best players keeping them down and the best juniors wanted to sign for the top six who also attracted more local kids of their own to play the game.

 

So neither P & R OR licensing has allowed the professional game to grow itself to a situation where there's a competitive league. The alternative IMVHO is the "third way" of centrally planning a made for TV league, but tradition will ensure that's a non-starter.

Thank God for that. TV is to help finance the game and grow it's revenues. It is not the raison d'etre for our sport.

By the way, Merry Christmas. We don't agree on much but I feel we are true RL supporters both. I wish you a happy new year and trust we will continue to joust in 2014.

[keighley]

Did P&R fail though?

I thought the same when I read that bald statement. Huddersfield, Hull KR, Wakefield and Castleford all made it and stayed with only Leigh playing the yo yo. Of those four, one was league leader, one made the playoffs and the other two survived.

Meanwhile Bradford, Crusaders, London, Salford, all elevated to SL by other means have been or are in deep manure. Of those Crusaders are gone, London are going, Bradford are serial collapse merchants and Salford survived on a miracle. Though, to be fair, Catalans bucked the trend.

Overall, I think p and r did alright.

[The Parksider]

I thought the same when I read that bald statement. Huddersfield, Hull KR, Wakefield and Castleford all made it and stayed with only Leigh playing the yo yo. Of those four, one was league leader, one made the playoffs and the other two survived.

Meanwhile Bradford, Crusaders, London, Salford, all elevated to SL by other means have been or are in deep manure. Of those Crusaders are gone, London are going, Bradford are serial collapse merchants and Salford survived on a miracle. Though, to be fair, Catalans bucked the trend.

Overall, I think p and r did alright.

 

It failed in the eyes of the RFL. Rimmer felt it failed because it made clubs facing relegation take short term decisions, it failed in his eyes because on promotion clubs were left with a mountain to climb, so Rimmer wanted promoted clubs to have time to "build".

 

P & R delivered nothing some years when clubs didn't have the resources to be promoted like Dewsbury and Hunslet. It was seen as pointless when Leigh went up and straight back down. What kept clubs up at times was having found big money, not promotion, and the switch to the 3 year cycle and licensing was used to protect expansion and to control who went up i.e. only clubs with enough money, and keep clubs without the money out like Barrow.

 

Superleague delivered the SKY contract and the RFL simply felt auto P & R left too much to chance as far as Superleague went. Those were the days when the RFL thought they could still build a competitive expanded league from top to bottom. P & R IM own VHO actually delivered nothing at all as a mechanism for growing the game or Superleague. The only thing that delivered was big wedges of money wether it was Jack Fultons that got Cas back up, Neil Hudgells that kept HKR up, Ted Richardsons that kept Wakefield up or Ken Davey money that kept Huddersfield up.

 

Hope that helps explain my point. ATEOTD you yourself do not support Auto P & R, only standards led which is the type of P & R we have never actually lost

 

Have a great Christmas day.

Edited December 25, 2013 by The Parksider

[Wellsy4HullFC]

It failed in the eyes of the RFL. Rimmer felt it failed because it made clubs facing relegation take short term decisions, it failed in his eyes because on promotion clubs were left with a mountain to climb, so Rimmer wanted promoted clubs to have time to "build".

P & R delivered nothing some years when clubs didn't have the resources to be promoted like Dewsbury and Hunslet. It was seen as pointless when Leigh went up and straight back down. What kept clubs up at times was having found big money, not promotion, and the switch to the 3 year cycle and licensing was used to protect expansion and to control who went up i.e. only clubs with enough money, and keep clubs without the money out like Barrow.

Superleague delivered the SKY contract and the RFL simply felt auto P & R left too much to chance as far as Superleague went. Those were the days when the RFL thought they could still build a competitive expanded league from top to bottom. P & R IM own VHO actually delivered nothing at all as a mechanism for growing the game or Superleague. The only thing that delivered was big wedges of money wether it was Jack Fultons that got Cas back up, Neil Hudgells that kept HKR up, Ted Richardsons that kept Wakefield up or Ken Davey money that kept Huddersfield up.

Hope that helps explain my point. ATEOTD you yourself do not support Auto P & R, only standards led which is the type of P & R we have never actually lost

Have a great Christmas day.

The same issues with Richardson, Hudgell and Wilkinson would and did happen under licensing. If anything, licensing exacerbated the problem.

[keighley]

It failed in the eyes of the RFL. Rimmer felt it failed because it made clubs facing relegation take short term decisions, it failed in his eyes because on promotion clubs were left with a mountain to climb, so Rimmer wanted promoted clubs to have time to "build".

 

P & R delivered nothing some years when clubs didn't have the resources to be promoted like Dewsbury and Hunslet. It was seen as pointless when Leigh went up and straight back down. What kept clubs up at times was having found big money, not promotion, and the switch to the 3 year cycle and licensing was used to protect expansion and to control who went up i.e. only clubs with enough money, and keep clubs without the money out like Barrow.

 

Superleague delivered the SKY contract and the RFL simply felt auto P & R left too much to chance as far as Superleague went. Those were the days when the RFL thought they could still build a competitive expanded league from top to bottom. P & R IM own VHO actually delivered nothing at all as a mechanism for growing the game or Superleague. The only thing that delivered was big wedges of money wether it was Jack Fultons that got Cas back up, Neil Hudgells that kept HKR up, Ted Richardsons that kept Wakefield up or Ken Davey money that kept Huddersfield up.

 

Hope that helps explain my point. ATEOTD you yourself do not support Auto P & R, only standards led which is the type of P & R we have never actually lost

 

Have a great Christmas day.

And the replacement to p and r, licencing likewise failed to deliver yet p and r is branded as a failure. Whether clubs get into SL via p and r or by appointment, they need money and financing. I don't see the distinction that promoted clubs need investment but equally so do appointed clubs with their shiny, phoney new licences.

A merry Christmas to you and all leaguies as well.

[The Parksider]

1. And the replacement to p and r, licencing likewise failed to deliver yet p and r is branded as a failure.

 

2. Whether clubs get into SL via p and r or by appointment, they need money and financing.

 

3. I don't see the distinction that promoted clubs need investment but equally so do appointed clubs with their shiny, phoney new licences.

A merry Christmas to you and all leaguies as well.

 

1. They both failed to do much of a job for sure, and of course it could be licensing was worse as it probably stretched clubs too far, but these two things are not the only two choices the game has. The failure of one way does not make the other way a success in hindsight does it?

 

2. Of course they do, pleased you now appreciate that, maybe the movement of clubs in and out of Super League should be ALL about money and financing.

 

3. I've never seen any such distinction apart from the fact that the bigger clubs need less money and financing. As for "phoney" new licences your going back over old ground believing that any club who ran out of money in SL and failed should not have had that Licence in the first place.

 

IMVH (Christmassy) Opinion the RFL didn't pick financially vibrant, solvent businesses from 1-14. Once they ran out of "A" clubs  of whom we had only FOUR the RFL then had to make the other 10 up with sub-standard clubs.

 

You seem to make the gross assumption that as Bradford failed badly Halifax would therefore have been the better choice for instance. I don't see the logic. Whilst Bradford were finding it hard, Halifax had spectacularly failed in the past and their licence application was "speculative, inadequate and insufficient", i.e. worse than Bradford's godawful one.

 

Just going back to P & R is pointless, it needs a third way and it needs for me the RFL/SLE to have a close eye on SL club finances, and have the flexibility to step in when the warning bells ring, and also to be able to chuck someone out and let someone else in on a year to year basis.

 

Even then that doesn't get over the problem that we'd still have only six or seven true SL clubs with the rest prone to collapse. That then brings mergers back on the table....

[keighley]

1. They both failed to do much of a job for sure, and of course it could be licensing was worse as it probably stretched clubs too far, but these two things are not the only two choices the game has. The failure of one way does not make the other way a success in hindsight does it?

 

2. Of course they do, pleased you now appreciate that, maybe the movement of clubs in and out of Super League should be ALL about money and financing.

 

3. I've never seen any such distinction apart from the fact that the bigger clubs need less money and financing. As for "phoney" new licences your going back over old ground believing that any club who ran out of money in SL and failed should not have had that Licence in the first place.

 

IMVH (Christmassy) Opinion the RFL didn't pick financially vibrant, solvent businesses from 1-14. Once they ran out of "A" clubs  of whom we had only FOUR the RFL then had to make the other 10 up with sub-standard clubs.

 

You seem to make the gross assumption that as Bradford failed badly Halifax would therefore have been the better choice for instance. I don't see the logic. Whilst Bradford were finding it hard, Halifax had spectacularly failed in the past and their licence application was "speculative, inadequate and insufficient", i.e. worse than Bradford's godawful one.

 

Just going back to P & R is pointless, it needs a third way and it needs for me the RFL/SLE to have a close eye on SL club finances, and have the flexibility to step in when the warning bells ring, and also to be able to chuck someone out and let someone else in on a year to year basis.

 

Even then that doesn't get over the problem that we'd still have only six or seven true SL clubs with the rest prone to collapse. That then brings mergers back on the table....

P and r is about two things. One is performance or non performance on the field and the other as always is about money but there should be no discussions of money or levels of financing until the winning on the field is achieved. There should be no Gateshead in SL just because a multi millionaire joins them. Promotion has to be earned first.

Let me be perfectly clear, I am not a disciple of St. Maurice. Mergers are counterproductive. They will lose the game fans, they will not grow the geographical footprint of the game and they will lose the game financiers as such ego driven people cannot coi exist.

IF, for the purpose of argument, I was to agree that mergers should take place and we lose Hull KR, Castleford and Widnes that will leave us with 11 SL clubs, two of which, London and Bradford are very shaky. If they go,there would then only be a league of 9 teams and only 8 in the UK.

If you think we are a small marginalised sport now, 9 team league playing a truncated or contrived fixture list will not be a recipe for a successful competition and I don't think Sky will be too impressed, especially as we would lose the very popular TV fixtures f the Derby games.

I think p and r should be given another chance,and apparently and more importantly , so do the rulers and shakers of the game. When we did have p and r several teams established themselves as bona fide SL teams on gaining promotion and none went bust, which is more than we can claim for the licencing era.

[The Parksider]

1. There should be no Gateshead in SL just because a multi millionaire joins them. Promotion has to be earned first.

2. Mergers are counterproductive. They will lose the game fans, they will not grow the geographical footprint of the game and they will lose the game financiers as such ego driven people cannot co-exist.

3. IF, for the purpose of argument, I was to agree that mergers should take place and we lose Hull KR, Castleford and Widnes that will leave us with 11 SL clubs, two of which, London and Bradford are very shaky. If they go,there would then only be a league of 9 teams and only 8 in the UK.

4. I think p and r should be given another chance.....

 

1. So if Koukash had turned up there with a 10 year deposit of £2M a year you'd have given him the hard word then? Gateshead were straight in came sixth and were the 11th. best supported club in the RFL out of nothing.Your principles are fine. Good luck with supporting Gloucester (195) Hemel (299) and Oxford (312) on their organic growth towards Superleague.

 

2. Cas (dropped to 6292) Wakey (dropped to 7973) Fev (up to 2400) all loss making SL crowds. You confuse the principle that businesses succeed and fail on the level of profit, not the level of customers. You forget ego-driven people do not want to be seen dead at Castleford or Wakefield.

 

3. If you want to somehow tell me the principle of merger will leave only 9 clubs then go ahead, but I cannot see your logic at all. You've just contrived to say you can't merge any clubs because you'll end up with 9. Meaningless.

 

Even if it was nine it would be one more than the ridiculous surrender to the status quo that effectively will leave only eight proper Superleague clubs.

 

4. Given another chance to do exactly what. How does P & R provide advantages to Superleague that in turn underpins the all important SKY contract?? How will it deal with the £68,000,000 Superleague losses?

Edited December 26, 2013 by The Parksider

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1. So if Koukash had turned up there with a 10 year deposit of £2M a year you'd have given him the hard word then? Gateshead were straight in came sixth and were the 11th. best supported club in the RFL out of nothing.Your principles are fine. Good luck with supporting Gloucester (195) Hemel (299) and Oxford (312) on their organic growth towards Superleague.

Gateshead lost millions and had to merge. If they continued, they'd have gone bust and would likely have played in front of tiny crowds getting hammered as their players left until the plug was finally pulled. If anything, that's an argument against franchising.

One novelty year does not make you a well supported club. When you're struggling yet people are still coming, that means you're well supported. There are different kinds of supporters who are at different levels of support.

2. Cas (dropped to 6292) Wakey (dropped to 7973) Fev (up to 2400) all loss making SL crowds. You confuse the principle that businesses succeed and fail on the level of profit, not the level of customers. You forget ego-driven people do not want to be seen dead at Castleford or Wakefield.

Without customers, where is the profit going to come from?

3. If you want to somehow tell me the principle of merger will leave only 9 clubs then go ahead, but I cannot see your logic at all. You've just contrived to say you can't merge any clubs because you'll end up with 9. Meaningless.

Even if it was nine it would be one more than the ridiculous surrender to the status quo that effectively will leave only eight proper Superleague clubs.

I think his point is you'd end up with 9 strongish clubs, and the rest would be nowhere near, so we'd actually contract.

Unless we've got clubs from other areas anywhere near ready to compete, there's absolutely no point in shrinking the number of Northern clubs.

4. Given another chance to do exactly what. How does P & R provide advantages to Superleague that in turn underpins the all important SKY contract?? How will it deal with the £68,000,000 Superleague losses?

Because when clubs underperform and fail, they get relegated.

In licensing, they get to continually fail.

There is little punishment for failure in the licensing. There is becoming less reward for success. SL is becoming more and more of an entertainment parade than a showcase if elite sport.

[RS]

"In licensing, they get to continually fail."

 

 

Out of interest Which club or clubs does that refer to?

[THE RED ROOSTER]

Is Bradford Bulls the gamechanger in the P&R debate ?

 

Think about this, are Bradford like the Banks a club deemed by the RFL as too big to fail. As things stand both Bradford and London are nailed on for relegation under the RFL masterplan. London's demise would have little impact in the "heartlands"  but the loss of Bradford from Super League would hit chairmen where it hurts, in the wallet, because of the size of their support and playing base.

 

Given that Investors are unlikely to put money into a club that would be playing in a second rate semi-pro competition or at best against semi-pro teams for half the season and the damage to the Super League "brand" that the loss of a "name" club to general sports fans would bring. Could this force a re-think on P&R or at the very least an insistance on conditional P&R ? 

 

It would also help London and clubs like Wakefield where investors would be more likely to put theire money in and develop a business plan without the variable of being relegated to a semi-pro competition or playing semi-pro clubs for half a season.

 

Not saying I necesarily agree with this, but it is the argument advanced by Aviva Premiership Chairmen as to why the Union Premiership needs to be ring-fenced which as been resisted by the RFU. So will this be under consideration at the Super League Chairmens meeting in January ?